Saying "This would be a disaster" is a bit hyperbolic. Sure, people who hate OSMapping and just want to use bulk imports will be very, very disappointed, and possibly even a bit upset that they actually have to go out into the real world and make maps. ;-)
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 8:54 AM, John Smith <deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2009/12/11 Anthony <o...@inbox.org>: >> I see no evidence that that's the case. I don't think attempting to impose >> a contractual agreement on others without their consent is going to work, >> and I think there will be significant negative side-effects to such immoral >> behavior. > > I don't think immoral is the right word here, people are trying to > come up with a suitable method to make sure everyone is playing fair, > if the data is improved isn't it only fair that the entire community > benefits from it, since whom ever improved it is obviously benefiting > from OSM data in the first place. > > Some would see it as immoral to not give back such changes to the community. > > While I agree with ODBL in principal, the devil is always in the > details and I'm still trying to find somewhere to obtain Australian > legal advice as to how this may adversely effect the Australian OSM > community. > >> Plus I think OSM is going to lose a huge chunk of the database over this. > > This would be a disaster, but some have already mentioned having a > read only database with non-ODBL data and then combining it on the > tile server to get round this problem, the problem with that of course > is how to remove non-ODBL data when ODBL data becomes available, since > you wouldn't easily be able to edit or remove such data from a read > only database. > -- Tel: +44(0) 7814 517 807 _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
